D&D 5E How do you define “mother may I” in relation to D&D 5E?

[pemerton]

It is not really productive to lay this issue at any one person’s feet. MMI is not a player or a dm problem or a system problem.

Whether or not "Mother may I" is a problem - you think it is by definition, I think @hawkeyefan agrees with you, I know @Ovinomancer doesn't - I think that it does flow, in part at least, from features of system. I'll explain why by reference to this post:

Importantly, the three-step play loop you present is slightly off. The version in the PHB is this:

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

A further bit of explanatory text for #2 is enlightening: "the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions. Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action."

So it's rather explicit that the player gets to make a declaration of intent, i.e. describe what they want their character to do (#2), but have no control over the outcome of that attempted action because the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions (#3).

A lot of the MMI examples provided in the thread sound like the player wanting to not only describe their character's attempted action (#2) but also narrate the outcome (#3)

In this post, overgeeked is describing a system in which all the players can do is establish truths about their PCs' intents and bodily motions, and make suggestions about what, in the fiction, might follow from that. The GM has all the authority to decide what actually happens as a result of a PC intending something and trying to move their body so as to accomplish it.

That is a system which is ripe with potential for "Mother may I" as a problem, and which - on @Ovinomancer's account - literally exemplifies "Mother may I" whether or not it causes problems at the table.

We could contrast it with a system in which players do have some control over the outcomes that result from what their PCs intend and how their PCs move their bodies. For instance, where the GM's job is to set a difficulty, the player is then able to draw on various player-side capabilities and resources, a resulting dice roll is made, and if that roll succeeds then what the player wanted becomes true in the fiction. (Burning Wheel is a RPG with the clearest statement of this sort of system that I know. 4e D&D skill challenges work like this too, at least as I read the rulebook.)

In the sort of alternative system, there is still some scope for "Mother may I", because it will be the role of the GM to understand and mechanically frame the player's declared action within the established fiction. But clearly that scope is much reduced, compared to a system in which the GM literally has all the say over outcomes.

And of course there are possible systems other than the two I've mentioned so far that also make a difference: for instance, Apocalypse World's "If you do it, you do it" means that when the fiction includes a certain thing, then the dice have to be rolled and the result of that roll imposes various obligations and confers various permissions on the game participants to establish new bits of fiction. The need for that initial adjudication of the fiction once again creates some scope for "Mother may I", but not a lot - it will generally be clear to everyone when a character is "doing it", given the way the system defines the its.

It's obviously not an objection to a system that it creates more (or less) scope for "Mother may I" than some other system, but I think it is a feature that can be worth noting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Can I persuade them to hand X over? No, not with a single ability check: it's precious to their order so on no account will they just hand it over to a stranger.

I want to focus on this one of the examples you’ve listed, because the others are less what I was talking about, and are more about clarifying information for the player rather than denying a request by a player.

This one though seems more a case of the latter than the former. Obviously your example is very light on the details, so it’s hard to say anything about it with certainty.

But… it sounds like a GM denying a possible solution to some kind of obstacle. So I think the important questions to ask here are “what is preserved by denying this action?” and “what does denying this action cost?”

If this was an example from actual play, then I’d love to see you expand on it and take a shot at answering those questions about it.

 

[Aldarc]

I felt here they might have better posed it as a question.

I felt here that the argument would have been better served by reading the arguments of others with integrity, respect, and good faith rather than implying that people who dislike MMI play are just entitled players who want to dictate outcomes and are upset that things don't go their way.

Might the MMI that folk dislike sometimes arise out of a player aiming to narrate the outcome of their actions?

No. I do, however, dislike when people explain their dislike of MMI but are then promtly ignored with belittling counter-arguments with exaggerated examples that make them sound like petulant entitled players who are just complaining that they don't get what they want. Are you endorsing or doubling down on this? If so, our conversation also ends here.

 

[Iosue]

That's not addressed to me, but I wanted to add that I personally have no examples of MMI as a player. Not of D&D, or any other TTRPG.

As DM, cases where I recall saying no are often about the rules. Can my spell do X? No, it's limited in the rules to doing Y. Other cases are about the environment. Can I fit down that hole? No, it's too small for medium and larger creatures. In 5e, applications of abilities can have a broad scope, so sometimes it is to dispel an ambiguity. Can I persuade them to hand X over? No, not with a single ability check: it's precious to their order so on no account will they just hand it over to a stranger. Other cases include positioning in combat. Can I see Q? No, you'd need to move that way a bit. Can I hide here? No, there's insufficient cover where you are.

Thinking on it, I say no all the time! Of course, I say yes a lot too. Could I hide over there, where there are bushes? Yes, as a wood elf you can do that with Mask of the Wild.

Often I ask for more description. I want to intimidate these cultists. Sure, how are you threatening them?

In fairness, while the DM saying “No” is the emblematic result of MMI, in practical terms what people are complaining about is the DM adjudicating the attempt in such a way as to render even “success” as non-beneficial or even harmful, making even Yes-es turn in No-es. For example, allowing the action, but tacking on so many penalties that the action is not worth doing. Or allowing the action, and even when it is successful, ruling so that the result is less than the player hoped for.

 

[FrozenNorth]

What are some examples where the GM says no? Do you have examples from your game that you can share?

I think the advice that Quinns offered in the Shut Up & Sit Down video was excellent advice, and you said you thought it was terrible.

Why? When is it okay for the GM to say no? Again, actual examples from play would be much more preferable than the absurd "I want the king to give me his crown" or "I want to pick up the castle and smash the dragon with it" hypotheticals.

When have you actually said no to a player's idea? What did that accomplish? What did it cost?

I would suggest that @pemerton other thread gives a very good example: a fighter leverage their in-play devotion and training in the Religion skill to stabilize a fallen ally.

While I personally would absolutely allow it, there are many DM’s that wouldn’t.

 

[FrogReaver]

I believe Mother May I is something that capable and well meaning GMs can easily fall into without realizing it. I think it’s good to talk about it as a possible pitfall of 5E based on how the game works. So in that sense, I don’t think it’s useless at all.

Why do you believe that?

See above for your original statement and my original question.

I felt I’ve already said it several times in this thread. The structure of the game places the vast majority of authority on the DM. The parts that don’t are mostly related to combat, where you have clear and observable rules that don’t typically require rulings… attack rolls, armor classes, hit points, saving throws… these are clear and don’t require interpretation by the DM. Also, spells… these allow players to dictate what happens, and the DM is obliged to honor it.

Then perhaps the issue is that I'm not following how the structure of the game placing the vast majority of authority on the DM makes it so a GM can easily fall into Mother May I without realizing it. It is true that the DM in D&D has the vast majority of authority, but it's not clear how that authority morphs into the GM doing Mother May I, and doubly so for doing it and not realizing it.

*Unless your position is that strong DM authority always necessarily produces Mother May I, but I don't believe that is your position.

Compare to an ability check to convince a guard to turn a blind eye to PC shenanigans. Do you think the process to do this in game is as clear cut as it would be if a player decided to just kill him? Or to cast Charm Person? Do you not see how much of this is up to the DM and how that makes it a case of the DM deciding how things will go?

IMO, such a process is clear cut. Just because a process has a step for DM Judgement in it doesn't make it an unclear process. IMO, what you are interested in is not a clear cut process but a process with no DM judgement.

As for the advice in the books, I asked that question because it is the absence of such advice that makes me believe it can happen. There’s no advice about this specifically, and little that could be interpreted as relating. The books simply do not warn about this. In fact, given how the game functions and the role of the DM, it actually does quite the opposite at times. Look at how often in these discussions people point out that “the DM is above the rules” or “the DM can alter any rules they feel necessary”.

Do you know why they usually bring that up? Because someone that wants no DM judgement in the D&D resolution process is complaining because the DM evaluated the genre, setting and current conditions and determined that despite the rules text that in these specific circumstances something works differently. An example, does fireball work the same way underwater?

If you have examples from the books that warn how funneling all decision-making through the DM can lead to unsatisfactory play, I’m all ears. If you can point to the books and say “here’s the list of principles for players and DMs” or “here’s a clear list of best practices how to promote player engagement” I’d be ecstatic. But this stuff doesn’t exist.

The game is premised on the DM making judgements and rulings based on the fictional position and that's implicit if not explicit in the rules of the game. If the DM is doing that then it's not clear how unsatisfactory play occurs due that that funneling all decision making through the DM. I'd even go a step further and argue that if the DM is following that basic guideline that the kind of unsatisfactory play you are concerned with here will not occur.

Many folks who play 5E are aware of these pitfalls because of long time experience with RPGs. I cited some of my own experiences. In the 2E days of AD&D, I very much ran games this way myself. My experience was much like that of Quinns from the Shut Up & Sit Down video that @Malmuria posted. I’ve also played in such games and found them less than satisfactory. It still comes up in my longstanding group from time to time, depending on who’s GMing.

Interesting. I'd love to hear some actual examples of Mother May I from your recent group. I think old school D&D was prone to Mother May I play. Some Gygaxian advice seems to specifically call for the gotcha playstyle that tends to lead to that feeling. But modern D&D is pretty far removed from that.

So all of this is what makes me feel that Mother May I is very possible with 5E, and need not be some kind of degenerate form of play. If you disagree, then what makes you feel that way?

I think it's very possible. However, being very possible is not the same thing as a good well meaning DM being easily able to fall into it.

 

[FrogReaver]

What about the structure of 5E would you say discourages Mother May I?

The basic play loop.

The DM describes the environment.
The players describe what they want to do.
The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

Where in that do the players have to ask for or await the DM's permission to describe anything that they want to do?

What bit of advice from the PHB or DMG would you say discourages Mother May I?

PHB: One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game's lead storyteller and referee. The DM creates adventures for the characters, who navigate its hazards and decide which paths to explore. The DM might describe the entrance to Castle Ravenloft, and the players decide what they want their adventurers to do. Will they walk across the dangerously weathered drawbridge? Tie themselves together with rope to minimize the chance that someone will fall if the drawbridge gives way? Or cast a spell to carry them over the chasm? Then the DM determines the results of the adventurers' actions and narrates what they experience. Because the DM can improvise to react to anything the players attempt, D&D is infinitely flexible, and each adventure can he exciting and unexpected.

PHB: Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world.

Which of the published adventures do you think do a good job of avoiding Mother May I? How do they do so?

I don't really run published adventures.

 

[FrogReaver]

Whether or not "Mother may I" is a problem - you think it is by definition, I think @hawkeyefan agrees with you, I know @Ovinomancer doesn't - I think that it does flow, in part at least, from features of system. I'll explain why by reference to this post:

In this post, overgeeked is describing a system in which all the players can do is establish truths about their PCs' intents and bodily motions, and make suggestions about what, in the fiction, might follow from that. The GM has all the authority to decide what actually happens as a result of a PC intending something and trying to move their body so as to accomplish it.

That is a system which is ripe with potential for "Mother may I" as a problem, and which - on @Ovinomancer's account - literally exemplifies "Mother may I" whether or not it causes problems at the table.

We could contrast it with a system in which players do have some control over the outcomes that result from what their PCs intend and how their PCs move their bodies. For instance, where the GM's job is to set a difficulty, the player is then able to draw on various player-side capabilities and resources, a resulting dice roll is made, and if that roll succeeds then what the player wanted becomes true in the fiction. (Burning Wheel is a RPG with the clearest statement of this sort of system that I know. 4e D&D skill challenges work like this too, at least as I read the rulebook.)

In the sort of alternative system, there is still some scope for "Mother may I", because it will be the role of the GM to understand and mechanically frame the player's declared action within the established fiction. But clearly that scope is much reduced, compared to a system in which the GM literally has all the say over outcomes.

And of course there are possible systems other than the two I've mentioned so far that also make a difference: for instance, Apocalypse World's "If you do it, you do it" means that when the fiction includes a certain thing, then the dice have to be rolled and the result of that roll imposes various obligations and confers various permissions on the game participants to establish new bits of fiction. The need for that initial adjudication of the fiction once again creates some scope for "Mother may I", but not a lot - it will generally be clear to everyone when a character is "doing it", given the way the system defines the its.

It's obviously not an objection to a system that it creates more (or less) scope for "Mother may I" than some other system, but I think it is a feature that can be worth noting.

If a game is explicitly not about players describing outcomes but rather intents, then why isn't Mother May I being judged for that game in relation to the players ability to describe their intents instead of in relation to them describing their outcomes?

 

[pemerton]

I'm not following how the structure of the game placing the vast majority of authority on the DM makes it so a GM can easily fall into Mother May I without realizing it. It is true that the DM in D&D has the vast majority of authority, but it's not clear how that authority morphs into the GM doing Mother May I, and doubly so for doing it and not realizing it.

I posted an explanation of this not far upthread, in the post (#471) that you replied to.

I don't know if @hawkeyefan agrees with everything in that post, but I think it captures the general gist of hawkeyefan's thoughts.

The game is premised on the DM making judgements and rulings based on the fictional position and that's implicit if not explicit in the rules of the game.

I think this understates the role of the GM as per the 5e rules. The GM is also given overwhelming, even sole, responsibility for establishing outcomes.

Just because a process has a step for DM Judgement in it doesn't make it an unclear process. IMO, what you are interested in is not a clear cut process but a process with no DM judgement.

I don't think this is a correct account of @hawkeyefan's position. I mentioned some alternatives to 5e D&D's resolution system which still involve GM judgement, to quite a significant degree, but that don't have the same structure as 5e, and hence are not as vulnerable to "Mother may I".

If a game is explicitly not about players describing outcomes but rather intents, then why isn't Mother May I being judged for that game in relation to the players ability to describe their intents instead of in relation to them describing their outcomes?

I don't know if I've understood your question - but you seem to be suggesting that the "Mother may I" categorisation should be applied in a way that is relative to system. To me that wouldn't make sense. "Mother may I" is a bit of terminology whose meaning is system-independent, and that is used to distinguish between RPG systems (and often to criticise those that are seen to fall under the label). What the terminology signals is (more or less) that the player can only impact the shared fiction via GM mediation and approval.

A system in which all players can do is express hopes about changes to the fiction - via establishing intents or immediate bodily actions for their PCs, but nothing more - is one which is liable to exhibiting this feature in ways that other systems (like the two I sketched, both of which allow the player to impact the fiction on a successful dice roll) are not.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think there's a few different things being called Mother May I in this thread.

• The players lack of any control over outcomes in the resolution process.
• The oldschool Gygaxian playstyle of you didn't say precisely you did this or didn't do that and so I as DM am free to insert into the narrative that you actually did one of those things that lead to a negative outcome.
• The DM too often says NO (either hard or soft - soft being too highly negative consequences compared to the benefit of the action) leading to the players feeling the only way they can legitimately interact with the game is either through explicit rules based actions like spells or by first establishing the DM's permission that an action they are attempting can actually be worth doing.

Perhaps there's a few more things Mother May I is being used to denote as well. I think it would be beneficial to be more explicit about the type of Mother May I we are intending to discuss when we post as it becomes very difficult to have a group discussion on the topic otherwise.